The Chernobyl nuclear disaster: 26 years ago today

Today is the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl. It is a disaster that left a 30-kilometre uninhabitable exclusion zone, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, and still threatens the lives of tens of thousands.

It’s 26 years later and what have the nuclear industry and its supporters learned?

Nothing.

The nuclear industry still hasn't realized or admitted that its reactors are unsafe. Reactors are vulnerable to any unforeseen combination of technological failures, human errors and natural disasters. That puts the tens of millions of people living near the worlds more than 400 reactors at risk.

(A map comparing fallout from reactor accidents in Chernobyl and in Fukushima. Significant radiation contamination from both will last for centuries.)

Nuclear power still has not found a way to finance itself without begging for subsidies from taxpayers. This is an industry that has been living off blank cheques from governments for the last 60 years. Private backers just aren’t interested. Nuclear is a “corporate killer” and a “dream that failed”.

There are countries, however, that are leading the way from nuclear to a renewable future. Germany, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland are all turning away from nuclear power. Just one of 54 reactors is operating in Japan now with the impact on people invisible. Japan is also showing right now that nuclear power isn’t needed.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Roddy
says:

Re 'unthinkable technology' from Consider, I was surprised (and encouraged) when George Monbiot got around to reading the Chernobyl Forum repo...

Re 'unthinkable technology' from Consider, I was surprised (and encouraged) when George Monbiot got around to reading the Chernobyl Forum reports and also the NYAS and other reports, and found the latter had zero credibility and the former almost total credibility.

Radiation is far from 'unthinkably' dangerous. It is dangerous, of course, and in the two examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima we have a chance to see exactly how dangerous, and weigh up the risks versus other alternatives of mass generation of electricity. It requires thinking, not dismissal as unthinkable.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Consider
says:

Roddy, I agree that there certainly needs to be a "[weighing of] the risks", but this should not include any explosive, heat-generating ener...

Roddy, I agree that there certainly needs to be a "[weighing of] the risks", but this should not include any explosive, heat-generating energy options, of which nuclear is the ultimate. Careful observation of nature is imperative for the development of proper technology. Nature only uses explosive or heat-generating energy for destruction and breakdown. The use of combustible and nuclear energy can only lead to degradation of the environment and health, as has been seen since the industrial and nuclear ages. The danger of nuclear radiation would be hard to exagerate.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Beppe
says:

I am not too clear about the benefits, if any, of electric or hybrid cars, can anyone explain?
Electricity from carbon or nukes is delivered to ...

I am not too clear about the benefits, if any, of electric or hybrid cars, can anyone explain?
Electricity from carbon or nukes is delivered to my plug at 33% efficiency, which is only marginally better than what a normal car combustion engine can do. However electric cars are more expensive to purchase and I have not heard about any plans on how to dispose of the exhausted batteries.
Some cars travel twice the distance than others for the same amount of fuel: it seems to me that levying a tax on the more fuel inefficient cars would be more effective than electric cars.
The story might be different if electricity is produced by a small fuel cell: you could generate electricity for the home at 50% efficiency while dumping the electricity produced in excess into your car and use the discharge heat to make hot water. Has anyone done any math on this?
It would be a shame if people bought electric cars because they think they are cleaner and the net result is that you just give more business to the electric utilities and create a lot of waste when they throw away the batteries (reasoning along these lines, 8 years ago I bought one of the most efficient non-electric cars available at the time)

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) nugget_hunter
says:

Oh give it up you lot, want us all to move back in to caves. green muppets if you want the dark ages just lock yourselves away after all the internet ...

Oh give it up you lot, want us all to move back in to caves. green muppets if you want the dark ages just lock yourselves away after all the internet that you use here would not exist without the nasty substances that you hate...berillium, lithium, all the dioxins produced. Greens are just the vegetables of society and most of the powerful ones are children of the chemical age. they dont care 12 monkeys happening here you dont care

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) zamm_
says:

@Beppe. In practice, you only seldom reach the rated ca. 30% efficiency (gasoline) when driving. You can find some fuel efficiency maps here:
ht...

@Beppe. In practice, you only seldom reach the rated ca. 30% efficiency (gasoline) when driving. You can find some fuel efficiency maps here:
http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Brake_Specific_Fuel_Consumption_(BSFC)_Maps
The bottom line is that efficiency becomes very low at low power. In this case, a hybrid car can shut down the combustion engine, and use the electric one instead. Moreover, you can recover some of the energy otherwise lost during braking, by using the motor as a generator to recharge the battery (BTW, batteries can be very well recycled - it's economical, because the metals aren't cheap, and they're already well sorted).
Fully electric cars are either short range or very expensive (large battery), but plug-in hybrids are a good compromise. In any case, electric cars are good for power generation stability, because you can use electricity when it's available in excess (at night, or when the wind blows).
What you intend to do is cogeneration. "Home" devices are available in Japan:
http://world.honda.com/news/2007/c070717Compact-Household-Cogeneration-Unit/
Fuel cells are more efficient, but currently not economical yet.
Larger neighborhood-scale gas turbines are both efficient and quite economical. The main problem is that cogeneration is mostly efficient in winter. Otherwise, you have too much heat, which cannot be used all. This would be an issue during summer in Japan (energy for AC cooling).

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) OnTheOcean
says:

a related song: Michel Montecrossa's ‘Nuclear Power Saves Up To Threat Level 7‘ is a New-Topical-Song for the Chernobyl Anniversary and no end of...

a related song: Michel Montecrossa's ‘Nuclear Power Saves Up To Threat Level 7‘ is a New-Topical-Song for the Chernobyl Anniversary and no end of radioactivity in a world with constantly growing contamination emanating

Video ‘Nuclear Power Saves Up To Threat Level 7‘:
http://vimeo.com/41134964

Michel Montecrossa says:
“’Nuclear Power Saves Up To Threat Level 7′ is a song of warning. Today we live in a world with no end of radioactivity and in a world withconstantly growing contamination emanating from always more nuclear
plants. ‘Nuclear Power Saves Up To Threat Level 7′ is triggered by the
Chernobyl Disaster Anniversary and the fact that we are not able to
handle our energy problems unless we find the way to achieving Human
Unity and the realization of the United States of Planet Earth. It is
the united effort of all humanity in a global union, free of borders
that can find a new way for producing and distributing energy without
endangering our life and the life and climate of the Earth.”

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Roddy
says:

Beppe, you'll have to explain in what way I am viewing you as a guinea pig, any more than I am viewing Chinese coal-miners as guinea-pigs, or thos...

Beppe, you'll have to explain in what way I am viewing you as a guinea pig, any more than I am viewing Chinese coal-miners as guinea-pigs, or those who dies as a result of Banqiao as guinea-pigs, or those who suffer from oil-slicks as guinea-pigs.

Trying to measure the danger of nuclear versus other mass generating technologies would be difficult without looking at the damage and deaths they have caused. Examination of the effects of the two largest cases of nuclear failure, Chernobyl and Fukushima, is therefore rather necessary.

You might as well say that trying different speed-limits views people as guinea-pigs.

Re electric transport you are right to be sceptical - if you care about CO2 then you either go electric but ensure it's low carbon, which means much more nuclear if you want electrification of transport on top of other electricity consumption, or you go higher efficiency, probably by taxing inefficient vehicles and fuel to drive people to ever-higher miles per gallon.